Slashdot Mirror

The Docetists[1] didn't believe that Jesus' body was anything but an illusion, and thus could not be resurrected. Further the Marcion didn't seem to either, quoting [2] "Marcion denied the resurrection of the body, "for flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God", and denied the second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, for the good God, being all goodness, does not punish those who reject Him; He simply leaves them to the Demiurge, who will cast them into everlasting fire."

These two are early christian sects, and would have considered themselves Christian. Note that I mention Marcion, because there is some suggestion that later followers did believe, but the earlier seems to not have.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...

Wrong. We know that there is not a single shred of evidence to give us even a slightest reason to think that there is such a thing as 'soul' ... We 'do not know' about soul in the same exact way, in which we 'do not know' about underpants gnomes or flying firebreathing dragons or a magic goat that lays golden eggs on the Moon every Thursday. None of these things exist until there is more than a belief but instead there is measurable repeatable falsifiable evidence that is more than some 'vision' by some believer.

Do you know that you exist? Do you have measurable repeatable falsifiable evidence of your existence?

Are you capable of discovering truth by means of the application of reason to observed phenomena? Do you have measurable repeatable falsifiable evidence of this ability?

Is it wrong to murder innocent people? What happens after death? Do you have measurable repeatable falsifiable answers to these questions?

Unless you've fully embraced deterministic nihilist materialism, these are important questions. And if you have, then why are you here arguing that they're unknowable and arguing them is pointless, since that would be pointless?

You compare the notion of the soul to several fantastical things in the existence of which we have no reasons to believe. Yet the soul is posited as an explanation for observed phenomenon. The theory predates the scientific method but that doesn't render it useless. As a philosophical construct, it can be used as a model and compared to observation to try to gain insight into how humans "work". We look around at how people behave, and some of us say "it's as if there's a principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, that is more than just the body yet connected to it. What might it be?"

You may argue that the soul, mind, and free will are emergent phenomenon, but that doesn't mean they don't exist; and more importantly, doesn't necessarily conflict with religious & philosophical understandings of them. See the Catholic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia for some good historical context of the reasons for humanity's belief in the soul.

(AC to preserve mods)

Literalism is modern, rather than the historical view:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles—as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen— the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

- Origen of Alexandria / Source

Which works as counterpoint insofar as one doesn't consider communist activity to also be another front of "the Illuminati".

I heard many years ago a rationale for considering such to be the case regarding that ill-defined entity, by way of Armand Hammer's questionable dealings with early members of the Soviet power structure, extolling and investing in the potential benefits of "managed conflict".

I'm not making a claim as to the veracity of this. Just pointing out that because a different descriptor like "communists" is used, that does not disqualify it overlapping the activities of other organizations with other names. Indeed, seeing a "(c) Illuminati Inc." on a particular economic or political movement would be the precise opposite of how that organization is surmised to work.

If one can fairly say that the most objective information on an organization often comes from its historical enemies who have no motivation to play-up its status, here's such a critique indicating that the organization did (does?) attempt to act on such a scale. For further information and/or amusement, from a source well predating all the current internet meme speculation...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...

I reject your bizzaro Latin and substitute an authoritative ENGLISH source to further back up the philosophic citations I made previously:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.

Sorry folks but I've supplied MULTIPLE sources for my defintion, both from modern language and multiple philisophical and theistic sources. The idea that atheism is the same thing as a lack of belief in God is preposterous.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia, A wordy, if not insightful resource for understanding many Catholic Positions. Shows us that to the Catholic teaching, ALL sexual conduct outside of marriage is immoral. The church also teaches that those who are homosexual should be encouraged to live chaste lives.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (5:24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

....The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth....

...From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously

...The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life

They believe the substance of the wine and wafer is transubstantiated into that of the blood and flesh of their god's avatar.

That's quite the wall of text trying to logically make sense out of a pagan ritual.

Sorry, but I think he's right. Do catholics truly believe that the wine and wafer turn to the blood and body of a person supposedly dead for 2,000 odd years? Really? I'm pretty sure that Dawkins is right and they don't - and they need to admit to themselves that they don't.

No. They believe the substance of the wine and wafer is transubstantiated into that of the blood and flesh of their god's avatar. This is different from believing that the accidents of that wine and wafer "turn to" the accidents of human blood and flesh, which if it were to happens would be a quite remarkable miracle. Anyone who confuses the two concepts of substance and accidents and criticises the former as it was the latter is incurring into a straw man, that is, replacing the actual argument with a simplified (and fake) one that's easy to refute, but whose refutation says nothing about the original.

As for the 'ridiculed with contempt' - yes, that's a bit on the nose. Citation needed. Got the source? (Not a religious site quoting Dawkins...)

Why not? In any case, here's the YouTube video. It's the full speech, but the link goes directly to the segment I quoted, which starts at the 14m28s mark.

This post is a little closer to what I believe.

Here's my personal background: I am a devout Catholic, and also a scientist (B.S. Chemistry, 2008, Illinois State Univ.). As a scientist, I do "believe" in the Truth of evolution (it seems odd to use that word, "believe", given the context). As a Catholic, I do believe in the Truth of the Bible.

Epistemology 101: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Specifically, this document references another, Humani Generis, which the author paraphrases: "there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points". Among those points, Catholics must believe that souls are created immediately by God (something that science can neither prove nor disprove), and that modern humans are descended from precisely one original pair of humans (the proverbial Adam and Eve). Beyond that, everything else is good.

Basically, it is permissible for a Catholic to believe in evolution, so long as we accept certain points.

What frustrates me is this: fundamentalists of all religious beliefs strip out nuance. I say, "of all religious beliefs" because the scientific fundamentalists preach dogma without nuance just as much as the religious fundamentalists do. Both "sides" attempt to stay as "sides", and preclude the other from participation at the talking table, without trying to find a way to make the other work within their own world view.

The passage you quoted addresses an issue that might crop up as if it were a flaw in the study. It's not. Therefore, the passage is misleading. It's basically a straw man argument. The actual study found that engaging in critical thinking could "[increase] disbelief." Your passage basically says "well, since I can't conceive of Thomas Aquinas abandoning his faith if he engaged in more critical thinking, the study clearly can't apply to religion as I choose to define it." The author is attacking the conclusions of the study by showing (actually assuming) that something the study did not claim is not the case.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "flaw". I suggest you re-read Ball's piece. His argument seems to be that since religious belief is a variegated thing, contrary to what you claim, he doesn't "choose to define it" in any particular way), the applicability of the study is limited to the particular type of religious belief specifically considered in the study. He isn't pointing out flaws in the study, just cautioning against reading too much into it. He actually praises the authors for the modesty of their conclusions and states, "But such honest disclaimers won’t prevent some atheists from asserting that the study shows that religion is the result of bad reasoning, if not downright stupidity, for which the only cure is a hefty dose of analytical sobriety." He offers Aquinas as a plausible example of someone with a kind of religious belief that isn't addressed by the study.

I'm not sure why you object to my comment about Aquinas. Perhaps if you'd spent less time digging up an intellectual sounding insult ("sophomoric") and more time stating your case....

Oh, the irony. To start with, because you didn't state yours. You basically made the naked assertion that if one of the most (in)famous intellectual giants of Western Civilization had only bothered to try a bit harder to use his noodle, then perhaps he could have come to the same conclusions as your highly rational self. If you can't see the problem with that, I don't think I can explain it. Sophomoric is probably the most polite thing that could be said about it.

Second, because it's really beside the point. The issue isn't whether Aquinas was right. It's whether his was the kind of religious belief that's likely to falter when subjected to a little analysis. Since his chief and lifelong occupation was attempting to think and write carefully and rationally about the Christian religion, and succeeding to the degree that 800ish years later, serious professional scholars are still elaborating and responding to his arguments, that seems unlikely. So, pointing out that Aquinas should have thought harder is hardly relevant to Ball's argument. It is, as I said, just an immature and pretentious barb.

Anyway, Aquinas' five proofs of God's existence are clearly logically flawed. In fact, all of Aquinas's thinking effectively rests on his statement: "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same" which of course is blatant begging the question.

No. It doesn't. Here's a bit more of what he wrote.

Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

Aquinas is claiming that, ontologically speaking, the statement "God exists" is self-evident. It is, however, not self-evident in the sense that we all incorrigibly know it to be true. Hence, the existence of God must be demonstrated. His arguments do not assume what he wants to show. Well, possibly they do, but definitely not in the trivial way that you seem to be suggesting.

St. Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra in the mid 300s.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11063b.htm

His best known legend is that there was a young girl in his parish who wanted to marry but had no dowry. One evening while walking by he anonymously tossed a bag of gold through her window. This alleged event is where he derives the "gift-giving" persona from.

The elf thing only dates back to "Twas the Night before Christmas", which refers to him as "a right jolly old elf". Whether this was meant literally or familiarly is open to interpretation, but in any case the author wasn't an expert on St. Nick, despite single handedly (with a little help from Coca-Cola's marketing department) creating the modern western image of Santa.

Fun Fact: Before Coke's marketing, Santa most often appeared in cards dressed in green or furs, not red.

There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus as a way of breaking the original covenant with Abraham the Jews had. The idea is that Adam brought Sin into the world, and at that point all Humans were damned to Hell.

You are incorrect. It was not Paul that brought the doctrine of Original Sin into Christianity, it was Augustine. The Orthodox (Greek) church has always rejected this doctrine. Augustine first introduced Original Sin (infant baptism) at the Counsel of Carthage in 419. Cannon 110 states:

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

link

Those that argued against Augustine were labeled "Pelagians" and were banished from Italy by the emperor:

The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith... Meanwhile, urged by the Africans (probably through a certain Valerian, who as comes held an influential position in Ravenna), the secular power also took a hand in the dispute, the Emperor Honorius, by rescript of 30 April, 418, from Ravenna, banishing all Pelagians from the cities of Italy.

link

Pelagius' case was never heard and the false doctrine of Original Sin became part of the Latin church.

There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus as a way of breaking the original covenant with Abraham the Jews had. The idea is that Adam brought Sin into the world, and at that point all Humans were damned to Hell.

You are incorrect. It was not Paul that brought the doctrine of Original Sin into Christianity, it was Augustine. The Orthodox (Greek) church has always rejected this doctrine. Augustine first introduced Original Sin (infant baptism) at the Counsel of Carthage in 419. Cannon 110 states:

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

link

Those that argued against Augustine were labeled "Pelagians" and were banished from Italy by the emperor:

The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith... Meanwhile, urged by the Africans (probably through a certain Valerian, who as comes held an influential position in Ravenna), the secular power also took a hand in the dispute, the Emperor Honorius, by rescript of 30 April, 418, from Ravenna, banishing all Pelagians from the cities of Italy.

link

Pelagius' case was never heard and the false doctrine of Original Sin became part of the Latin church.

Is the Catholic encyclopedia good enough for you?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned"

it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ

Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold.

In short, if you know about the Catholic church and you refuse to join it, you can't go to heaven and instead suffer eternal damnation (hell, limbo, purgatory).

As for recruitment, that's the purpose of the Catholic church: to "spread the gospel of Jesus Christ", which the Catholic church defines as including the universality of the Catholic church itself.

To clarify my post's link, I mean these guys, who generally used their "eye" references somewhat more symbolically and less literally--consistent with the translated text.

Hmm... have I just been trolled?

Including / quoting the pope (so, the formal head of majority of Christians)

Isn't he sort of considered as the antichrist and/or an usurper by the other half of christianity?

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the academy's [Pontifical Academy of Sciences] refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.
He asked those whom he called the Church's "senatus scientificus" to serve the truth.
...
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
...
A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts

Quite telling, regarding their brainfarts. The modern theory of big bang was kick-started by a priest (also a mathematician and astronomer; though such hypothesis was also very convenient for somebody who dedicated large chunk of his life to Abrahamic mythology), no problems there... (likewise with evolution, even to a "truth cannot contradict truth" degree - if tl;dr, at least check 3 sentences starting with "How do the conclusions", 2 with "It is necessary to determine", and 3 with "Today, almost half")

Of course, for most of the creationists you are probably most likely to stumble upon, they are not even protestant generally speaking, they just like calling themselves like that (just because they are not catholic, I guess? And what about that "christian" label...). Protestants do not interpret the bible literally, if you do that you are a heretic. Of course most of the heretics found their faith ridiculed in the old world and migrated to the new, but being illiterate fools, they forget they weren't even really protestant, and that they in their teachings defied the words of Martin Luther... And now, given the degree of orthodox ignorance that's required to feel in any way at home in many of the churches... (nvm how people somehow think primitive uncivilized societies of superstitious illiterates were capable of securely maintaining even proper records, short of burying stone tablets and forgetting them because of the illiterate part)

How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Pretty darn good, considering historical documents support it, and Matthew was written when, and by who? Probably not Matthew, since it was written after he died (approx 110-130 - except of course if you ask the church).

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but protestants also regard the Bible as word of God. So my argument is valid.
And for the authorship and origin of Matthew, know that Catholic Church researches these things carefully: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
I'm not sure what your point is either.

Of course, even if it were written by Matthew, there's the various contradicting portions of the Bible. Like any thing in the Bible, one can easily find some part that says the opposite.

I understand how this may seem so to you. The fact is, Bible is a religious document meant to be interpreted by the Church. Yes, Holy Church predates Bible, has written it, and has canonized it.

They are just not encouraged to THINK about it.

Really?... Start here if you'd like. It illustrates internal debates beginning way back with St. Augustine, and continues today. Google can turn up thousands more.

Hell, The US Catholic Church can't even decide which translation to use! ...and note the last link, an informal guide to choosing. I'll expand the relevant bit:

"At Catholic Answers we are often asked which Bible version a person should choose. This is an important question about which Catholics need to be informed. Some have been given very little help about how to pick a Bible translation, but keeping in mind a few tips will make the decision much easier. There are two general philosophies translators use when they do their work: formal or complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence translations try to give as literal a translation of the original text as possible. Translators using this philosophy try to stick close to the originals, even preserving much of the original word order. Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations. "

The only universal recommendation I could Google up is that literal translations are better than dynamic (pre-interpreted to make more readable) translations. So, err, for an organization that you purport to be all big on control, you'd think that they would not only have one translation, but that they would recommend one which was dynamic (that is, pre-interpreted), no?

As for the Index Libororum Prohibitorum, its purpose has changed dramatically over the years, and for the past and present centuries, holds little if any of what you're representing it as. You may want to actually look up what it really is (link provided for convenience).

How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory

Heck, the Catholic Church looks better and better with each passing... decade, in comparison (one example / area)

How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

PS. How many of the "concerned" in the style of grandparent poster are false flag concern trolls, essentially?

How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. ... It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Interesting times, indeed.

I'm not the original poster but it is not hard to find information:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
Second sentence confirms point made.

A more Catholic spin on it is given at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm (see the section titled The inquisition in Spain).

2. Again Wikipedia is a good starting point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades ), and has many references for further reading. "The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (...) against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate,"

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity Hitler rejected all of the Old Testament, which places his version of Christianity quite far from anything commonly accepted as Catholic or Lutheran.

4. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair (in the Dialogue section). Essentially the Pope would only allow Galileo to publish a book on his theory if he included the Pope's view in the book as well; Galileo made the character giving the Pope's view an idiot (named Simplicio) and this upset people a lot (as they assumed he was trying to make the Pope look like an idiot).

While not forgetting...

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
...
How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth
...
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences
...
new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory." - Pope John Paul II

[...]Even you said it, that even the craziest "Christians", the WBC, is considered less nuts than radical islam and muslims.[...]

WBC are hardly the craziest "Christians".

Let's start our tour with an inquisitor, then move on to The Troubles, then back way up to the Crusades. This Crusade is a particularly fine example. Jumping ahead, we have Jim Jones et al, and of course, as others have pointed out, a whole list of violent crazies on Wikipedia. (Darn it, I tried to avoid Wikipedia links.)

WBC are just a relatively mild set of nutjobs in the long view. Christianity can offer hundreds of years of worse.

With that said, pick any other large group, and I'll be able to find similar levels of crazy within it. It's a human thing, not particular to any one religious or ethnic grouping. One of the fallacies humanity will hopefully eventually overcome is the crazy idea that one group of people is inherently "better" or "worse" than any other group of people. As far as I can tell, you can only really judge on an individual level, and that can be pretty messy and ambiguous in most cases.

Also:

I'm not saying Islam is going to disappear tomorrow due to terrorists, but recruitment is probably down since the 90s.

I haven't found a good comparison of Muslim growth in the ten years before and the ten years after 2000, but it seems like they have a pretty solid growth rate currently.

The Church is opposed to freedom of expression.

Wrong.

Say goodbye to your remaining credibility — two examples relating to Catholicism are trivially located on Wikipedia through google. You didn't even try to be honest.

I don't think any modern Catholic would argue that you shouldn't be free to choose to be a heretic, if you so wish. It's your immortal soul, not mine. I do of course reserve the right to disagree with you and possibly even to attempt to explain to you where you've gone wrong. ;-)

The church has disagreed throughout history. If they had the power I am quite sure that they would make it a criminal act to be a heretic today. The Catholic church has a history of punishing people for unbelief when they are in a position of sufficient power, and there is no reason to believe that they would act any differently today. Given what they do to [a percentage of] believers, which is to say raping them homosexually while preaching that both rape and homosexuality are wrong, I'd say there's every reason to believe that the church hasn't changed its stripes whatosever since high officials are still covering up this abuse, which proves collusion rather than simply implying it. Every time your church hides a child molester, they are condoning child molestation.

Supporting this church is an unconscionable act. Describing yourself as a member of this church is condoning child molestation in the same way that describing yourself as a member of the KKK is condoning lynching and cross-burnings. Furthermore, it is a foolish act, as this is clearly a church that will not hesitate to throw you to the wolves, or even tear you apart themselves if it furthers their goals. Given how Jeshua supposedly treated the money-changers in the temples, he would certainly have been appalled at the gold dripping from Catholic churches while followers starve in the streets — all too common in Latin America.

That is something which I suppose may be a possibility - something similar to the Eastern Orthodox tradition where (I believe) priests cannot marry, but it is possible to be ordained after getting married, so at the end of seminary priests must choose whether to get married or remain celibate.

In the western church (and to a large degree in the eastern churches too, where after all Bishops and religious must still remain chaste) it has been found that celibacy gives freedom to the priest, and aids the working of the church, and hence I suppose has been made the norm.

An interesting article was posted only today talking about celibacy in the Jesuit tradition, here and there is much else written about it (for example the catholic encyclopedia article)

Finally, we shouldn't forget that celibacy is of course not forced on anyone - every priest has made a free choice with due warning to enter into this state of life. Priesthood isn't a right, it is a gift of God to those able with his grace to live it.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up, and it seems Knara is right to call for a cite:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm

Almost always a 'sin' per that article. Unless you're a saint. They touch on the issues, but their decision seems pretty resolute.

Religion ("believing in something") is considered more important than science ("examining things"). So what is the surprise in that education in general goes down the drain? The home-schooling religious right has one thing correct: Education is fundamentally hostile to religion and all the other "we already have the answers" bullshit bingo.

Right, so that's why monks were the first groups of people in the modern era to set up organised schools for teaching things like grammar, mathematics, logic and philosophy (hence grammar schools). And why the Vatican has an official astronomer and funds serious astronomical research.

All through my (admittedly very conservative) Catholic upbringing, the preachers and teachers I encountered always emphasised not only the benefits of a deep and broad education, but also the importance of critical thinking, the dialectic method in theology and the necessity of questioning and understanding the rationale for belief.

I think that identifying organised religion with blind, anti-rational and anti-scientific viewpoints and hostility to education, or asserting some sort of mutual exclusivity between belief and critical thinking, would be a bigoted and foolish mistake on your part. Of course, since I am clearly a member of the "religious right", and was home-schooled to the age of seven, I expect you to dismiss my opinion completely.

I have been using as a research tool http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ for years. There are even a few Ask a Priest websites that are a quick google away. I have partaken in Catholic Channels on IRC and Yahoo chat - This is where I discovered Protestant Spam bots trying to save my heathen RC soul.

If you're going to get pedantic on me, you shouldn't be so sloppy with your langauge:

"Killing is a mortal sin as it is suicide; there's no greys on this, just black and white."

Killing? Really? So soldiers in a just war are toast? I'll have to look that up in my Catechism. No, wait, I don't. Bzzzzt.

As to the nature of mortal sin being only "black and white", Mr. Anonymous Coward, if that is your real name, there are conditions to a sin being mortal:

1. It must be a serious and grave sin.

2. You must have "sufficient reflection" on the grievous nature of the sin being committed.

3. You must commit the sin of your own free will.

For more detail, you can see the section on "Imputability" on this page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

I'm not contradicting Catholic doctrine in any way when I suggest that a mentally ill or even an overwrought person who commits suicide might be lack culpability because of conditions 2 and 3. I am merely stating that we cannot know whether these mitigating circumstances exist in any case, and can pray for the person, and as I stated above, can place our faith in the mercy and justice of God.

In the future, I would suggest you be more careful in understanding and communicating Catholic doctrine before you accuse others of hypocrisy. It might save some hurt feelings, and more importantly, might keep you from looking like an idiot.

> They should call it Paulism instead of Christianity.

I don't think Paul would like that, if you read what I've excerpted from the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Chapter 1:

11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my bretheren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 Lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

In case you're wondering, as best we know, Paul was beheaded with a sword.

Speaking of which, this wasn't actually written by me. I'm actually an impostor with the same name publishing a pseudepigraph. Obviously, I've never used the word sesquicentennial on Slashdot before, let alone vestigial or varmint, so the word frequency and vocabulary is all wrong, as astute scholars may eventually realize some thousands of years from now. Hopefully, this post will prove to be pivotal when they debate whether Slashdot should have been called Cowboy Neildot given that CmdrTaco was actually a minor figure in the whole rise of the Cult of Slashdot in Ancient America.

American Evangelical Christians do not accept that the Bible is fallible, nor do they recognize denominations that do as actually being Christians! (Yes, as far as a large percentage of Americans are concerned, the Catholics are no more Christian than the Latter Day Saints or the Rastafarians or the Tibetan Buddhists.)

It seems that you are misinformed on the Catholic teaching on the Bible (and don't provide any sources to support your claim) and I'd like to give you and the other readers a little more information on the topic. I put up with a lot of people claiming falsehoods regarding the Church (even other Catholics), but your post was rated +5 Insightful so I couldn't let this one slide.

Technically, the Catholic Church has never made a claim one way or the other about the Bible's infallability. To state an inanimate object to be fallible or infallable would be a misconstrual of the word. From Catholic.com:

When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent--that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).

In other words, for something to be fallible or infallible, it needs to be capable of making a decision. A book can not make a decision. Therefore, the Catholic Church couldn't teach infallability regarding the Bible, a rock or a bush. It wouldn't make sense.

With that out of the way, we can talk about what the Catholic Chuch does teach about the Bible: that it is inerrant (free from error). Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about the inerrancy of the Bible, from the First Vatican Council:

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labor, and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and have been transmitted to the Church as such."

From this official statement, we see that the Catholic Church teaches the inerrancy of the Bible.

I know this is slashdot, but if you are going to make claims about other people's beliefs, it might help to link to some verifiable sources so that you aren't unintentionally spreading falsehoods.

Peace.

If you were trolling...good job. I think this was my first post in years!

In catholic school religious ed I was taught that communion at least once a year was a requirement. (Found it here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm After a year of not taking it, starting at 15, I considered myself officially outside their organisation, no paperwork required.

The fact that they have my name on their books somewhere is not relevant to me, since they also have on their books that you need a man in a dress to contact god for you and forgive you in god's behalf.

Vegans want to reduce the suffering of animals, insects are not animals, they are insects.

Science would disagree with you. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say on, oh, I dunno, let's pick the Hymenoptera (the order of insects that contains the aforementioned honeybees).

Note the Kingdom at the top of the phylogeny...

OK, so you might dismiss science. That's fine. Have a look at how the Bible classifies things such as insects. It's a little more complicated, as it divides animals into 'behemoths'/'beasts' (bigger things that live on land), 'fowl' (including "all things that fly" even if they "go upon four feet", and insects such as bees), 'living beings that swim in the water', and 'creeping things' (short-legged mammals, reptiles, and the flightless insects) - but, as far as the Bible is concerned, they're still all animals.

What was your point again? That the vegan exclusion of insects from their definition of animals was an arbitrary definition to allow them to enjoy things like honey and cupcakes with cochineal-coloured icing?

I don't know about ID, but if you want a cleric and a scientist, try St. Albert the Great
Before my last move I attended a Catholic church named after him. The quote up on the wall was 'Use all the wisdom of man to delve the mysteries of God'

I expect he would be really excited about the LHC if he was alive today.

Nothing wrong with that; Immortality is a central pillar in the world's religions, reflecting a deep human concern and valuing of life.

"Together with the question of the existence of God, (immortality) forms the most momentous issue with which philosophy has to deal." -- Immortality, in the Catholic Encyclopedia

That being said, the early Christian church criticized the lending of money at interest too. The Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 published the proceedings of their council in the form of 20 canons. Here's the text of Canon 17:

Canon 17. Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, He has not given his money upon usury, and in lending money ask thehundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.

(The text of all 19 canons is available at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm, and of course in other places on the Web.)

Can you please tell me who does believe that?

The big three monotheistic religions all believe in an invisible man in the sky. You're not the first person to raise objections to that description of the entity also known as God/Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah, but it is an accurate one nevertheless.

You clearly are either:

1) trolling 2) completely ignorant of the beliefs of monotheistic religions.

For example the word "invisible" is meaningless when applied to God, who is incorporeal, as is "in the sky". Man is also not applicable, unless you can reasonably define a being who exists outside time and space, is sexless (except for Christians, and then specifically only to one person of the trinity when incarnate), etc.

Opps! It looks like every single word of your description is wrong. How is that accurate?

Assuming you are ignorant, rather than trolling, I suggest you either desist from making comments about things you do not understand, or you take the trouble to learn about the subject. I suggest reading this, this, this, and this. They are all IMO simplistic or flawed, and it is much better explained in books than anything I can find online.

It was as recently as the previous century or two that possession of a manuscript Bible in English would get you burned.

That is (yet another) a myth. Vanacular translations of varying completeness and quality existed for centuries, for example Cyril and Methodius (c. 800) who invented the Cyrillic alphabet just so they could translate the bible into the vernacular.

This myth seems to have been derived from the council at Toulouse, France in 1229. It was in was attempting to counter the Albigensian or Catharist heresy (a variant of Manichism) which held that marriage is evil because all matter is evil. The Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (much like Jehovah's Witnesses and their doctored translation of the bible). This specific translation was forbidden.

(Aside from the above, your main point that the increase in the number of vernacular (not just English) translations that happened in 1400-1500 was "heralding" something is exactly right. But it was probably heralding the rise of literacy rather than any religious shifts.)

I think the grandfather comment was a reminder of how the Catholic Church has been known to react toward "open sourcing" their knowledges. One of the big differences between Catholics and Protestants was that Catholics were not allowed to read the bible. In fact it was illegal to own a Bible at home (in XVIIth century France at least)

"Ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ," declares the Catholic Church in Dei Verbum (the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). In fact, those who *could* read Latin during the Middle Ages (and not everybody could - I know, it's shocking that there wasn't universal literacy during the Middle Ages) were highly encouraged to read the Bible. But it wasn't just latin. People as early as 680 AD (e.g. Caedmon) were translating portions of Scripture into the vernacular. Aelfric (~1000 AD), one of the best known Old English authors, paraphrased large portions of scripture in English. Gutenberg himself was a Catholic, and the first thing he used his printing press to do was print copies of The Bible. Even Martin Luther himself wrote: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

You're just full of anti-Catholic bile, is all. Try actually learning some history.

The Index (of forbidden books) was updated until the Vatican II council (1966) and is still considered by the Holy See to have a moral value as a list of the books one should prevent oneself from reading.

And I'm not surprised at all that you've gotten your details wrong here too. It was only updated until 1948 (having started in 1529, giving it roughly a 400 year run). 1966 was when it stopped being *published* - there's a difference. In any case, the stance of the Catholic Church on the matter is that people have a moral obligation to avoid circulating things that will endanger morals and faith (not just books - that's songs, movies, behaviors, whatever). Essentially, you're not supposed to knowingly convince people (including yourself) to abandon their faith. It's akin to saying: don't spread lies. If you believe X to be the truth, then distributing things that contradict it would be distributing lies. If it's a particularly important truth, then it's particularly important not to convince people of a contradiction of that truth.

The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought.

The "general feeling"? Of who, misinformed anti-Catholic bigots? The stance of the Catholic Church is essentially what Pope John Paul II said in a speech in 1996: Truth cannot contradict truth. If something seems to be truth outside of the doctrine, then cool! If it seems to contradict doctrine, then something has been misunderstood (either the doctrine has been misunderstood or the external evidence has been misunderstood). As another example, back in November of 2005, the AP reported the following:

A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into âoefundamentalismâ if it ignores scientific reason. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the âoemutual prejudiceâ between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Church is not known for its research centers trying to find archaeological proofs of the Bible or to correct it

Hairshirt: A garment of rough cloth made from goats' hair and worn in the form of a shirt or as a girdle around the loins, by way of mortification and penance.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07113b.htm

For example, the original Hebrew prophecy of the Messiah spoke of a "young girl," which in the Greek Septuagint -- which was the most popular "Bible" back when the New Testament was being written -- translated into a word meaning "virgin." Well, this eventually snowballed into the Immaculate Conception, but starting from the 1700s or so Christians started to recognize that what really happened was that young teenage Mary got herself knocked up.

If this is the best bible scholarship your book has, then throw it out the window and forget everything you learned from it, because the author doesn't know crap.

First, yes the Hebrew means "young girl" (culturally synonymous with a virgin) and the Greek means "virgin" (specifically). That's the prophecy. The New Testament, which records the events, uses "virgin" specifically in reference to Mary. There is no conflict - the OT word is broad enough to encompass virgin, even if it doesn't require it, so there is no need for convoluted explanations.

Second, the roots of the Immaculate Conception go back to Patristic times (200-600 AD or thereabout). To claim it arises in the 1700's is just gross ignorance.

Finally, the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. It has nothing (directly) to do with the conception of Jesus. If you're going to write books attaching Christian teachings, at least take the trouble to learn what the hell you're talking about! Oh, but this is Slashdot, where the most idiotic crap will get modded "Insightful" as long as it bashes Christianity.

-JS

For example, the original Hebrew prophecy of the Messiah spoke of a "young girl," which in the Greek Septuagint -- which was the most popular "Bible" back when the New Testament was being written -- translated into a word meaning "virgin." Well, this eventually snowballed into the Immaculate Conception, but starting from the 1700s or so Christians started to recognize that what really happened was that young teenage Mary got herself knocked up.

If this is the best bible scholarship your book has, then throw it out the window and forget everything you learned from it, because the author doesn't know crap.

First, yes the Hebrew means "young girl" (culturally synonymous with a virgin) and the Greek means "virgin" (specifically). That's the prophecy. The New Testament, which records the events, uses "virgin" specifically in reference to Mary. There is no conflict - the OT word is broad enough to encompass virgin, even if it doesn't require it, so there is no need for convoluted explanations.

Second, the roots of the Immaculate Conception go back to Patristic times (200-600 AD or thereabout). To claim it arises in the 1700's is just gross ignorance.

Finally, the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary. It has nothing (directly) to do with the conception of Jesus. If you're going to write books attaching Christian teachings, at least take the trouble to learn what the hell you're talking about! Oh, but this is Slashdot, where the most idiotic crap will get modded "Insightful" as long as it bashes Christianity.

-JS

Summa Theologica. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm I believe I win here, this document has been evidence for the faith for 800 years. Although, protestants don't use any of the old church documents, and thusly could not defend their faith; Catholics on the other hand have both evidence and reasonable proof for our theory.